|
Author
|
Topic: Still believe that there is not a world government?
|
Trafield
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
If you want to look for a 'World Government' then I think you're better off looking closer to home. The US, particularly under Dubya seems to think it is running the world anyway (and to be honest they're probably right).
I never said the U.S. wasn't involved in the conspiracy for world government. In fact, I believe we could be one administration away from signing and ratifying the Rome Statute and officially becoming a part of the New World Order.
And clearly, the Bible shows that this is a conspiracy:
Daniel 11:21
He will be succeeded by a contentemptible person who has not been given the honor of royalty. He will invade the kingdom when its people feel secure, and he will seize it through intrigue (intrigue: An underhanded plot or scheme).
Revelation 17:12-13
"The ten horns you saw are ten kings who have not yet received a kingdom, but who for one hour will receive authority as kings along with the beast. They have one purpose and will give their power and authority to the beast."
IP: Logged | 
|
|
NeFan77
Advanced Member
Member # 2973
|
posted
If this interests you you should check out my poll on the upcoming election in the polls sections of the BBS.
NeFan77
Posts: 81 | From: Illinois | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
H2G2
Advanced Member
Member # 2443
|
posted
quote:
Originally posted by NeFan77:
quote:
The only reason you would need a 'World Court' is if it is needed to govern global legal matters. In fact, you cannot have a world government without a world court, which is why one has been created, instead of letting the individual nations handle their own cases. It is a matter of national sovereignty yielding to 'world law.'
I disagree here. A world court was established to deal with international disputes in a fair and just matter. An example would be if the US and Canada have a trade dispute, then the only fair thing to do is to take it to a third non partial party made up of peers, in this case other countries represented by a world court. Without such a system there would be no one to keep countries in check when dealing with economic and social injustices.
I think the conspiracy theory has taken hold a little to strong here....
Couldn't agree more.
In any event, the US has a long history of ignoring the judgements of the ICJ so why would the ICC worry it?
If you want to look for a 'World Government' then I think you're better off looking closer to home. The US, particularly under Dubya seems to think it is running the world anyway (and to be honest they're probably right).
Posts: 40 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
NeFan77
Advanced Member
Member # 2973
|
posted
quote:
The only reason you would need a 'World Court' is if it is needed to govern global legal matters. In fact, you cannot have a world government without a world court, which is why one has been created, instead of letting the individual nations handle their own cases. It is a matter of national sovereignty yielding to 'world law.'
I disagree here. A world court was established to deal with international disputes in a fair and just matter. An example would be if the US and Canada have a trade dispute, then the only fair thing to do is to take it to a third non partial party made up of peers, in this case other countries represented by a world court. Without such a system there would be no one to keep countries in check when dealing with economic and social injustices.
I think the conspiracy theory has taken hold a little to strong here....
Posts: 81 | From: Illinois | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
H2G2
Advanced Member
Member # 2443
|
posted
The ICC and the ICJ are not the same thing.
Posts: 40 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Trafield
unregistered
|
posted
quote:
How is that 'World Government'?
The only reason you would need a 'World Court' is if it is needed to govern global legal matters. In fact, you cannot have a world government without a world court, which is why one has been created, instead of letting the individual nations handle their own cases. It is a matter of national sovereignty yielding to 'world law.'
If you cannot see this as world government, then perhaps you should read the Rome Statute
www.iccnow.org which is the legal document of this world court. This document shows how the International Criminal Court's, aka 'World Court,' laws supercede an individual nation's own laws or constitution. This is why in the above article the World Court thinks it can order the United States to comply. This is why president Bush unsigned the Rome Statute that Clnton had signed.
IP: Logged |
|
|
Tyme
Advanced Member
Member # 3017
|
posted
-Edit-
was being rude, deleted it
Tyme.
--------------------
I dream of a world.......
Posts: 527 | From: United States | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
|
|
TEXASGRANDMA
Advanced Member
Member # 847
|
posted
H2G2
You are being unnecessarly rude to this person. Our world is getting closer and closer to a one world government. The UN is making more and more decisions for all countries. I can see this person's point.
--------------------
Luk 21:28 And when these things begin to come to pass, then look up, and lift up your heads; for your redemption draweth nigh.
http://www.indieheaven.com/artists/mm (son-in-law)http://www.myspace.com/mireles
Posts: 4985 | From: Washington State | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
H2G2
Advanced Member
Member # 2443
|
posted
World Government?
What are you on?
We are talking about the international court of justice here are we not?
The ICJ has been around since 1922 and in it's current form since 1946 and exist to settle disputes between nations in a peaceful way.
How is that 'World Government'?
Posts: 40 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
|
|
Trafield
unregistered
|
posted
World Court Says U.S. Violated Mexicans' Rights
By ANTHONY DEUTSCH, AP
http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20040331041909990002&_mpc=news%2e10%2e3
THE HAGUE, Netherlands (March 31) - The world court ordered the United States on Wednesday to review the death penalty cases of 51 Mexicans, including one scheduled to die May 18 in Oklahoma, saying their right to consular assistance was violated.
The ruling by the International Court of Justice could mean a reprieve or another chance of appeal for dozens of Mexican prisoners. It also could have implications for other foreign citizens in U.S. prisons who were not told they could receive help from their governments.
The State Department has not responded to the ruling, and officials in Oklahoma and Texas, where three of the Mexican inmates are on death row, said no immediate action was being taken in those cases.
It was the second time the highest U.N. court has ruled the United States broke the 1963 Vienna Convention, which protects foreigners accused of serious crimes. In 2001, Arizona ignored a court order to stay the execution of a German citizen.
Although the court dealt specifically with the cases of 52 Mexicans, it cautioned the principle should apply to all foreigners imprisoned for serious crimes. There are 121 foreign citizens on U.S. death row, 55 of whom are Mexican, according to the Death Penalty Information Center.
It would be wrong to assume the court's conclusions ''in the present judgment do not apply to other foreign nationals finding themselves in similar situations in the United States,'' said the ruling by a 15-member panel.
The court backed virtually all of Mexico's main arguments, presented in December.
''The U.S. should provide by means of its own choosing meaningful review of the conviction and sentence'' of the Mexicans, presiding judge Shi Jiuyong said.
Shi said the review, in all but three cases, could be carried out under the normal appeals process in the United States.
U.S. officials will study the decision carefully, said State Department spokesman Adam Ereli, adding that the United States has tried to comply with the requirement that consular access be granted to Mexican and other citizens detained on U.S. soil.
Arturo Dager, a legal adviser with Mexico's Foreign Relations Department, said the court's findings were ''a triumph of international law.''
''Mexico was not vindicated. The rule of international law was vindicated. Of course we are confident the United States will fully comply with the ruling,'' added Mexican Ambassador Juan Gomez Robledo.
David Sergi, who represents Texas prisoner Roberto Ramos, said the ruling ''will give us a chance to litigate a lot of issues that were not addressed at trial.'' He said it could lead to a retrial or at least a sentencing review for his client.
For the three defendants who have exhausted all appeals, the United States should make an exception and review their cases one last time, the court said.
If the United States doesn't abide by the ruling, Mexico intends to take further legal steps, according to a Mexican diplomat. Countries that fail to comply with court rulings can be referred to the U.N. Security Council for ''appropriate action,'' according to the court's statute.
Even if Washington accepts the decision, it's unclear if federal authorities have the power to enforce it or compel individual states to abide by it.
In hearings in December, lawyers for Mexico argued that any U.S. citizen accused of a serious crime abroad would want the same right, and the only fair solution for the men allegedly denied diplomatic help was to start their legal processes all over again.
The United States had argued the case was a sovereignty issue, and that the 15-judge tribunal should be wary of allowing itself to be used as a criminal appeals court, which is not its mandate.
Besides Ramos, the court ordered a special review for fellow Texas inmate Cesar Fierro, and Osbaldo Aguilera Torres, in Oklahoma. Torres is set to be executed on May 18.
Fierro was convicted of shooting a taxi driver to death, Ramos was convicted of killing his wife and two children with a hammer, and Torres was convicted of killing two people during a burglary.
Mark Henrickson, who handled Torres' appeals, said he hopes Oklahoma will comply with the ruling and that his client will be given a new trial.
''The U.S. frequently asks that nations abide by international law and I think we need to abide by international law,'' Henrickson said.
But Oklahoma Gov. Brad Henry plans no action in the case until after a May 7 clemency hearing before the state's Pardon and Parole Board.
''Because Governor Henry has yet to receive any official recommendation on the Torres case from the State Pardon and Parole Board, there is nothing he can do at this time,'' said Henry spokesman Paul Sund, who added that the ruling is being reviewed.
A spokesman for the Texas Attorney General's office said the state doesn't believe the court ruling has standing.
''We've certainly requested assistance of U.S. Department of State for guidance in interpreting this ruling,'' said spokesman Paco Felici. ''But ... we stand on the same comments that we've provided all along during this process, which is our jurisdiction, our cases are in the state and federal courts, and these individuals have been duly tried or are in the process of being duly tried in those courts.''
Other Mexicans are on death row in Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Nevada, Ohio, and Oregon.
The U.S. Supreme Court has refused to be drawn into the international debate over foreigners on death row. In November, the court declined to hear an appeal from Torres, although two of its more liberal members - Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice John Paul Stevens - had misgivings.
Mexico does not have the death penalty. In 2002, Mexican President Vicente Fox canceled a visit to President Bush's ranch in Texas to protest the state's execution of convicted police killer Javier Suarez Medina, a Mexican national. The Supreme Court had refused to hear his appeal.
It is the third time the United States was brought before the court over death penalties imposed against foreign nationals.
Germany lodged a suit in 1999, seeking a ruling on the execution of two German brothers, convicted for murder after a botched robbery. Karl LaGrand was executed before the court could intervene. His brother, Walter, was executed later despite the decision.
Paraguay filed suit against the United States in 1998 to stop the execution of its citizen, Angel Francisco Breard, on Virginia's death row for murder and attempted rape in 1992. It withdrew the case, also based on the Vienna Convention, after Breard was executed.
03-31-04 1822EST
IP: Logged |
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view of this topic
